If you 're rich and want to give money to a lot of political campaigns , the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that you can .

The 5-4 ruling eliminated limits on how much money people can donate in total in one election season .

However , the decision left intact the current $ 5,200 limit on how much an individual can give to any single candidate during a two-year election cycle . Until now , an individual donor could give up to $ 123,200 per cycle .

The ruling means a wealthy liberal or conservative donor can give as much money as desired to federal election candidates across the country , as long as no candidate receives more than the $ 5,200 cap .

While most people lack the money to make such a large total donation to election campaigns , the ruling clears the way for more private money to enter the system .

In effect , it expands the loosening of campaign finance laws that occurred with the high court 's Citizens United decision in 2010 that eased campaign spending by outside groups .

Are campaign donations a form of free speech ?

At issue was whether limits in the Federal Election Campaign Act on overall -- or aggregate -- campaign spending by individuals violate the First Amendment rights of contributors .

`` We conclude that the aggregate limits on contributions do not further the only governmental interest this court accepted as legitimate '' in a 1976 ruling , said Chief Justice John Roberts , who wrote the opinion of the court 's conservative majority . `` They instead intrude without justification on a citizen 's ability to exercise the most fundamental First Amendment activities . ''

In dissent , Justice Stephen Breyer said the majority opinion will have the effect of creating `` huge loopholes in the law ; and that undermines , perhaps devastates , what remains of campaign finance reform . ''

Republican leaders hailed the decision as an affirmation of free expression rights .

`` It does not permit one more dime to be given to an individual candidate or a party -- it just respects the constitutional rights of individuals to decide how many to support , '' said Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky .

However , congressional supporters of tougher campaign finance laws expressed concern about more private money influencing elections .

`` I am concerned that today 's ruling may represent the latest step in an effort by a majority of the court to dismantle entirely the longstanding structure of campaign finance law erected to limit the undue influence of special interests on American politics , '' said Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona , a longtime proponent of campaign finance reform .

New campaign finance reform ?

Some legislators called for new campaign finance legislation in response to the ruling , but such reforms appeared impossible in an election year .

Sen. Pat Leahy of Vermont , the Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee , said he would hold a hearing on the impact of `` alarming Supreme Court decisions that have eviscerated our campaign finance laws . ''

Another top Senate Democrat , Charles Schumer of New York , warned of further erosion of limits on special interest influence in elections .

`` This in itself is a small step , but another step on the road to ruination , '' Schumer said . `` It could lead to interpretations of the law that would result in the end of any fairness in the political system as we know it . ''

The case involved Shaun McCutcheon , the owner of an Alabama electrical engineering company , with support from the Republican National Committee .

They objected to a 1970s Watergate-era law restricting someone from giving no more than $ 48,600 to federal candidates , and $ 74,600 to political action committees during a two-year election cycle , for a maximum of $ 123,200 .

McCutcheon argued he had a constitutional right to donate more than that amount to as many office seekers as he wanted , as long as no single candidate got more than the $ 5,200 per election limit -LRB- $ 2,600 for a primary election and another $ 2,600 for a general election -RRB- .

`` Spending money on advertising , promoting ideas and supporting candidates is an exercise of our right to freedom of speech , '' McCutcheon told CNN on Wednesday after the ruling came out .

Preventing corruption

Supporters of the limits struck down Wednesday said the law prevented corruption or the appearance of corruption . Without the limits , they argued , one well-heeled donor could in theory contribute to every federal race possible .

The ruling leaves in place current donor limits to individual candidates , and donor disclosure requirements by candidates , political parties , and political action committees .

`` What I think this means is that freedom of speech is being upheld , '' said House Speaker John Boehner , an Ohio Republican . `` You all have the freedom to write what you want to write . Donors ought to have the freedom to give what they want to give . ''

But supporters of the limits expressed disappointment .

`` The Supreme Court majority continued on its march to destroy the nation 's campaign finance laws , which were enacted to prevent corruption and protect the integrity of our democracy , '' said Democracy 21 president Fred Wertheimer , a longtime advocate for election money reforms . `` The court re-created the system of legalized bribery today that existed during the Watergate days . ''

Congress passed the individual aggregate limits in the wake of the Watergate scandal , and the Supreme Court upheld them in 1976 .

The separate Citizens United case in 2010 dealt with campaign spending by outside groups seeking to influence federal elections .

In that case , the conservative majority -- citing free speech concerns -- eased longstanding restrictions on campaign spending by corporations , labor unions , and certain nonprofit advocacy groups .

The Citizens United ruling helped open the floodgates to massive corporate spending in the 2012 elections . It also led to further litigation seeking to loosen current restrictions on both spending and donations .

What the ruling on campaign money means

@highlight

Supreme Court lifts limits on how much in total one person can donate

@highlight

Its 5-4 ruling means wealthy donors can give to as many campaigns as they want

@highlight

People can still only give a maximum of $ 5,200 to a single candidate

@highlight

Critics warn the ruling further undermines already weakened campaign finance laws